Joshua Bachrach (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) will present “Recent Developments on Equitable Relief Under ERISA” at the 2026 DRI Life, Health, Disability & ERISA Seminar, held April 29 – May 1, 2026, in Atlanta, Georgia. Josh’s session provides a brief review of relevant Supreme Court decisions and covers various topics, such as whether surcharge is a permissible remedy under ERISA, use of Section 502(a)(3) to recover attorney’s fees, and the applicability of the exhaustion requirement. Josh, who has handled several hundred ERISA cases nationwide, also addresses breach of fiduciary duty claims and equitable relief remedies at this preeminent seminar for in-house and outside counsel regularly practicing in the life, health, disability, and ERISA areas.

Andrew Albright (Partner-Chicago) and Keti Mebuke (Associate-Chicago) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “ANSI Standards in Product Liability Litigation: Admissibility, Strategic Use, and Practical Risk Management” on April 30, 2026. The webinar examines how courts treat voluntary industry safety standards in product liability cases, including their admissibility at trial and how these standards are used by experts to evaluate product design and safety. Using a revolving-door injury case by way of example, the webinar will discuss how ANSI standards (including ANSI/BHMA A156.27, governing power-operated revolving doors) are applied in product liability litigation. The session will also review relevant case law, including Illinois authority, addressing the admissibility and evidentiary role of industry standards. The webinar is designed for attorneys, claims professionals, and risk managers who handle product liability matters and seek a practical understanding of how ANSI standards influence trial, expert testimony, litigation strategy, and risk management.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an order on April 23, 2026, rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana and Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cannabis products to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The order is also expected to jumpstart the stalled Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) rescheduling process for adult use marijuana, which currently remains in Schedule I. The order, therefore, narrows but does not eliminate federal prohibitions. Historical Insurer Treatment of Marijuana For years, federal illegality and Schedule I status fueled blanket exclusions, limited capacity, and encouraged a reliance on the excess and surplus (E&S) market, where bespoke forms and higher premiums filled coverage gaps. Large commercial insurers consistently cited federal illegality and related banking/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) concerns as the principal reasons to stay out, with reputational risk present but fading over time. Federal AML rules under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) added compliance friction for “financial institutions,” a term that includes insurers, keeping many programs E&S-only. Reinsurance treaties often include Schedule I barriers, limiting underwriting capacity and appetite. The result has been a fragmented market with tight limits, uneven forms and reinsurance constraints, while admitted options remained scarce.  Emerging Insurance Opportunities Under Schedule III Rescheduling removes a top financial headwind for state‑licensed medical operators by removing Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, enabling ordinary business deductions and improving margins and balance sheets that are essential for better insurance terms and capacity. As profitability and transparency improve, carriers are likely to expand property and business interruption limits for medical cannabis insureds and lean back into reinsurance partnerships that were hard to place under Schedule I. Directors and Officers (D&O) towers should also deepen if valuations, listings, and deal flow revive, though board risk will get more complex. On the casualty side, product liability and recall remain core needs across the supply chain, and demand should rise as operators scale and SKUs proliferate. Underwriting and Risk Assessment The expectation should not be for underwriting to get “easy” just because the schedule number has changed. Transitional risk is real as a result of new products, larger facilities, evolving QA systems, and changing oversight, which all add execution risk that underwriters will price and condition.  Reclassification may also spark short‑term turbulence if unregulated products spike or enforcement lines blur, amplifying exposures around labeling, warnings, and adverse event tracking. Carriers must continue to scrutinize controls around testing, traceability, facility security protections, and product compliance.  Regulatory and Compliance Implications for Insurers Banking access should improve as perceived AML risk recedes, and Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement (FinCEN) is widely expected to refresh guidance, which would materially reduce compliance concerns for insurers. That said, federal law still treats marijuana as a controlled substance, and FDA/DEA frameworks do not harmonize with adult‑use state markets. The federal prescription drug system mandates FDA‑approved products, doctor prescriptions, pharmacy dispensing and uniform labeling. FDA has not approved “marijuana” itself for any condition, even though it has approved a CBD‑derived drug (Epidiolex) and several THC‑related drugs (Marinol, Syndros, Cesamet).  Schedule III drugs, by definition, require valid prescriptions. The new order recognizes state‑licensed medical marijuana within Schedule III, but it does not create FDA standards for those state‑program products. The history of federal attention over CBD should be a cautionary tale for what may come next. Years after hemp was removed from the CSA, the FDA tried to police the quickly expanding consumer hemp product market but eventually gave up and punted the question to Congress in 2023. The regulatory status of CBD in consumer products remains unclear to this day. The move to Schedule III makes a similar pattern likely for medical marijuana products, while leaving intact the prohibition on interstate commerce for unapproved drugs. With no FDA playbook governing state medical cannabis, insurers still face gray zones on product safety, compliance warranties, and how to price recall and product‑liability risk across a patchwork of state standards. To date, the DOJ has largely sidestepped how federal rules will interact with state markets, and even now FDA officials have signaled limited appetite and capacity to police the state industry. This uncertain compliance environment keeps the market in “proceed with caution” mode.  Broader Insurance Market Outlook Even with the new Schedule III order and an expected acceleration of rulemaking for adult use cannabis products, most industry experts still forecast incremental, measured expansion rather than a flood of cheap capacity. Specialty E&S markets will maintain their early lead, scaling capacity where controls are strong and data quality is high. Established carriers may test targeted segments, which may include well capitalized and vertically integrated operators with robust governance. Reinsurers, meanwhile, should selectively increase their presence as banking and financial reporting normalize. Admitted options may emerge first for lower hazard risks, but E&S will dominate complex risks until federal state alignment is clearer and product safety litigation trends stabilize.  Where We Are Going Rescheduling is the green light many insurers have been waiting for, but the light is still flashing. Most importantly, the timing on rescheduling and rulemaking for adult use cannabis products remains uncertain. Taxes and banking are set to improve immediately for medical marijuana operators. In this environment, new insurance entrants will follow the underwriting experts who already know the terrain. The winners will be carriers and insureds who treat this as a disciplined pivot‒ lock in compliance, invest in quality systems, and build programs that can scale as federal guidance catches up. The next 12 to 24 months should see steady capacity gains and a gradual transition from “can we insure it?” to “how well is it run?” Meanwhile, E&S is still calling the plays while the admitted market warms up on the sidelines. 

Super Lawyers® has named three Wilson Elser attorneys to the 2026 Virginia Rising Stars™ list: Rising Stars Natalie B. Jacobs (Associate) – Professional Liability: Defense Haley B. Mathis (Of Counsel) – Business Litigation Hariton J. Wilson (Associate) – Civil Litigation: Defense Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys 40 years old and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.

New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.

Craig Brinker (Partner–Dallas, TX) and Meina Heydari (Associate–Washington, D.C.) obtained dismissal of a legal malpractice and gross negligence case in the 401st District Court of Collin County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s clients, a law firm and two attorneys. Our clients had represented the plaintiff in an earlier child custody case. The pro se plaintiff alleged that in the underlying matter, the attorneys failed to adequately represent her during a contested temporary orders hearing in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) action involving custody and support issues concerning her minor son, and sought actual and exemplary damages. Craig and Meina filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(h)(3), arguing that because the plaintiff’s claims turned on her attorneys’ litigation strategy in a complex family-law proceeding, expert testimony was required to establish the breach and causation elements of her claims. They further argued that the plaintiff’s failure to designate any experts, despite receiving a thirty-day extension of the designation deadline, warranted dismissal. Craig and Meina also successfully opposed the plaintiff’s invocation of the “common knowledge” exception and request for additional discovery, establishing that the absence of expert testimony was a dispositive deficiency that further discovery could not cure. The court granted Wilson Elser’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against all three defendants with prejudice.

Gregory McGroarty (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) will moderate the New Jersey Defense Association’s webinar “Using Experts to Defend BI and Business Interruption Claims,” on May 1, 2026. Greg, alongside industry professionals from YA Group, MC Consultants, and Rimkus, will offer practical insights on evaluating and defending common claims that can disrupt business operations. Topics covered include premises liability strategies for slip-and-fall accidents, injury considerations in low-speed motor vehicle accidents, and the effective assessment of business property damage and interruption claims.

The New York Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act became effective on April 18, 2026, establishing new deadlines for third-party complaints. Under this Act, a third-party plaintiff must file their complaint within 90 days of serving the initial answer pursuant to CPLR § 1007(b).1 Any third-party complaint against a plaintiff’s employer, however, must be filed within 90 days of the later of (1) discovering the employer’s identity; or (2) determining that the plaintiff sustained a “grave injury” as defined by Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. CPLR § 1007(e).2 The Act prohibits filing a third-party complaint after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice. CPLR § 1007(c).3 A third-party action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. CPLR § 1007(d).4 Any severed actions that are initiated as new actions cannot then be consolidated. CPLR § 1007(f).5 Regarding retroactivity: an amendment clarifies that the Act applies to all cases commenced on or after the April 18, 2026 effective date.6 Be advised that as of April 16, 2026, the New York State website has not yet integrated this amendment into the statutory text.7 Lexis captures this update in the editor’s notes,8 and Westlaw includes it within the proposed legislation section.9 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  5 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  6 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8809  7 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  8 2026 N.Y. ALS 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Laws 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Ch. 79 ; 2026 N.Y. SB 8809 9 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search/v1/results/navigation/i0a93b86c0000019d9c1ba0e5c3a0e723?ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&Nav=MULTIPLECITATIONS&fragmentIdentifier=NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6&parentRank=0&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=781efccd7c647a1b5673e671cb33d842&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=a4a94ca7e43970d7bb6b9036b5ab4e414796eb2f36e0a800dc47d1459a582deb&ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)

Sarah Fink (Of Counsel-Long Island, NY) authored “Mixed Signals on the Free Flow of information Online – One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,” appearing in the April 21, 2026, posting of Westlaw Today. The article examines three recent court decisions that send mixed signals on the future of internet liability and statutory safe harbor defenses, highlighting a Supreme Court ruling that reinforces protections for online service providers and encourages the free flow of information, alongside two state court rulings (California and New Mexico) that expand potential liability for social media platforms, holding that they can be held liable for harm caused by addiction to social media. Sarah opines, “Together, these three decisions highlight the tension between First Amendment speech rights, statutory safe harbors, public safety online, and recourse for harms, such as mental health deterioration and copyright infringement.” She further explains that the cases “also demonstrate that the traditional statutory safe harbors for internet actors may be circumvented by creative pleading and litigation tactics, leading to questions about their continued relevance.”

Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Andrew Rossi (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a property owner/landlord. The plaintiff, a tenant at the client’s apartment complex, allegedly sustained a forehead laceration, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and injuries to her neck after striking her forehead on a dumpster’s trunnion bar while taking out her trash. She claimed the trunnion bar, which a truck uses to lift the dumpster during emptying, was a dangerous condition because it “sticks out inconspicuously” and lacked warnings or contrasting paint to make it more visible. The codefendant waste management company supplied and serviced the dumpster under a customer service agreement with our client, retained ownership, and specifically prohibited the client from altering it. The plaintiff, who had lived at the property for more than a year, admitted to using the dumpster at least weekly to dispose of her trash. Michael and Andrew moved for summary judgment, asserting that the client neither owed nor breached a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff where the alleged condition of the trunnion bar was open, obvious, and readily visible on equipment the client did not own or control. The court entered summary judgment on behalf of the client, dismissing all claims and crossclaims.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an order on April 23, 2026, rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana and Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cannabis products to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The order is also expected to jumpstart the stalled Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) rescheduling process for adult use marijuana, which currently remains in Schedule I. The order, therefore, narrows but does not eliminate federal prohibitions. Historical Insurer Treatment of Marijuana For years, federal illegality and Schedule I status fueled blanket exclusions, limited capacity, and encouraged a reliance on the excess and surplus (E&S) market, where bespoke forms and higher premiums filled coverage gaps. Large commercial insurers consistently cited federal illegality and related banking/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) concerns as the principal reasons to stay out, with reputational risk present but fading over time. Federal AML rules under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) added compliance friction for “financial institutions,” a term that includes insurers, keeping many programs E&S-only. Reinsurance treaties often include Schedule I barriers, limiting underwriting capacity and appetite. The result has been a fragmented market with tight limits, uneven forms and reinsurance constraints, while admitted options remained scarce.  Emerging Insurance Opportunities Under Schedule III Rescheduling removes a top financial headwind for state‑licensed medical operators by removing Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, enabling ordinary business deductions and improving margins and balance sheets that are essential for better insurance terms and capacity. As profitability and transparency improve, carriers are likely to expand property and business interruption limits for medical cannabis insureds and lean back into reinsurance partnerships that were hard to place under Schedule I. Directors and Officers (D&O) towers should also deepen if valuations, listings, and deal flow revive, though board risk will get more complex. On the casualty side, product liability and recall remain core needs across the supply chain, and demand should rise as operators scale and SKUs proliferate. Underwriting and Risk Assessment The expectation should not be for underwriting to get “easy” just because the schedule number has changed. Transitional risk is real as a result of new products, larger facilities, evolving QA systems, and changing oversight, which all add execution risk that underwriters will price and condition.  Reclassification may also spark short‑term turbulence if unregulated products spike or enforcement lines blur, amplifying exposures around labeling, warnings, and adverse event tracking. Carriers must continue to scrutinize controls around testing, traceability, facility security protections, and product compliance.  Regulatory and Compliance Implications for Insurers Banking access should improve as perceived AML risk recedes, and Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement (FinCEN) is widely expected to refresh guidance, which would materially reduce compliance concerns for insurers. That said, federal law still treats marijuana as a controlled substance, and FDA/DEA frameworks do not harmonize with adult‑use state markets. The federal prescription drug system mandates FDA‑approved products, doctor prescriptions, pharmacy dispensing and uniform labeling. FDA has not approved “marijuana” itself for any condition, even though it has approved a CBD‑derived drug (Epidiolex) and several THC‑related drugs (Marinol, Syndros, Cesamet).  Schedule III drugs, by definition, require valid prescriptions. The new order recognizes state‑licensed medical marijuana within Schedule III, but it does not create FDA standards for those state‑program products. The history of federal attention over CBD should be a cautionary tale for what may come next. Years after hemp was removed from the CSA, the FDA tried to police the quickly expanding consumer hemp product market but eventually gave up and punted the question to Congress in 2023. The regulatory status of CBD in consumer products remains unclear to this day. The move to Schedule III makes a similar pattern likely for medical marijuana products, while leaving intact the prohibition on interstate commerce for unapproved drugs. With no FDA playbook governing state medical cannabis, insurers still face gray zones on product safety, compliance warranties, and how to price recall and product‑liability risk across a patchwork of state standards. To date, the DOJ has largely sidestepped how federal rules will interact with state markets, and even now FDA officials have signaled limited appetite and capacity to police the state industry. This uncertain compliance environment keeps the market in “proceed with caution” mode.  Broader Insurance Market Outlook Even with the new Schedule III order and an expected acceleration of rulemaking for adult use cannabis products, most industry experts still forecast incremental, measured expansion rather than a flood of cheap capacity. Specialty E&S markets will maintain their early lead, scaling capacity where controls are strong and data quality is high. Established carriers may test targeted segments, which may include well capitalized and vertically integrated operators with robust governance. Reinsurers, meanwhile, should selectively increase their presence as banking and financial reporting normalize. Admitted options may emerge first for lower hazard risks, but E&S will dominate complex risks until federal state alignment is clearer and product safety litigation trends stabilize.  Where We Are Going Rescheduling is the green light many insurers have been waiting for, but the light is still flashing. Most importantly, the timing on rescheduling and rulemaking for adult use cannabis products remains uncertain. Taxes and banking are set to improve immediately for medical marijuana operators. In this environment, new insurance entrants will follow the underwriting experts who already know the terrain. The winners will be carriers and insureds who treat this as a disciplined pivot‒ lock in compliance, invest in quality systems, and build programs that can scale as federal guidance catches up. The next 12 to 24 months should see steady capacity gains and a gradual transition from “can we insure it?” to “how well is it run?” Meanwhile, E&S is still calling the plays while the admitted market warms up on the sidelines. 

Andrew Albright (Partner-Chicago) and Keti Mebuke (Associate-Chicago) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “ANSI Standards in Product Liability Litigation: Admissibility, Strategic Use, and Practical Risk Management” on April 30, 2026. The webinar examines how courts treat voluntary industry safety standards in product liability cases, including their admissibility at trial and how these standards are used by experts to evaluate product design and safety. Using a revolving-door injury case by way of example, the webinar will discuss how ANSI standards (including ANSI/BHMA A156.27, governing power-operated revolving doors) are applied in product liability litigation. The session will also review relevant case law, including Illinois authority, addressing the admissibility and evidentiary role of industry standards. The webinar is designed for attorneys, claims professionals, and risk managers who handle product liability matters and seek a practical understanding of how ANSI standards influence trial, expert testimony, litigation strategy, and risk management.

Joshua Bachrach (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) will present “Recent Developments on Equitable Relief Under ERISA” at the 2026 DRI Life, Health, Disability & ERISA Seminar, held April 29 – May 1, 2026, in Atlanta, Georgia. Josh’s session provides a brief review of relevant Supreme Court decisions and covers various topics, such as whether surcharge is a permissible remedy under ERISA, use of Section 502(a)(3) to recover attorney’s fees, and the applicability of the exhaustion requirement. Josh, who has handled several hundred ERISA cases nationwide, also addresses breach of fiduciary duty claims and equitable relief remedies at this preeminent seminar for in-house and outside counsel regularly practicing in the life, health, disability, and ERISA areas.

Super Lawyers® has named three Wilson Elser attorneys to the 2026 Virginia Rising Stars™ list: Rising Stars Natalie B. Jacobs (Associate) – Professional Liability: Defense Haley B. Mathis (Of Counsel) – Business Litigation Hariton J. Wilson (Associate) – Civil Litigation: Defense Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys 40 years old and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.

New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.

Craig Brinker (Partner–Dallas, TX) and Meina Heydari (Associate–Washington, D.C.) obtained dismissal of a legal malpractice and gross negligence case in the 401st District Court of Collin County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s clients, a law firm and two attorneys. Our clients had represented the plaintiff in an earlier child custody case. The pro se plaintiff alleged that in the underlying matter, the attorneys failed to adequately represent her during a contested temporary orders hearing in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) action involving custody and support issues concerning her minor son, and sought actual and exemplary damages. Craig and Meina filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(h)(3), arguing that because the plaintiff’s claims turned on her attorneys’ litigation strategy in a complex family-law proceeding, expert testimony was required to establish the breach and causation elements of her claims. They further argued that the plaintiff’s failure to designate any experts, despite receiving a thirty-day extension of the designation deadline, warranted dismissal. Craig and Meina also successfully opposed the plaintiff’s invocation of the “common knowledge” exception and request for additional discovery, establishing that the absence of expert testimony was a dispositive deficiency that further discovery could not cure. The court granted Wilson Elser’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against all three defendants with prejudice.

Gregory McGroarty (Of Counsel-Madison, NJ) will moderate the New Jersey Defense Association’s webinar “Using Experts to Defend BI and Business Interruption Claims,” on May 1, 2026. Greg, alongside industry professionals from YA Group, MC Consultants, and Rimkus, will offer practical insights on evaluating and defending common claims that can disrupt business operations. Topics covered include premises liability strategies for slip-and-fall accidents, injury considerations in low-speed motor vehicle accidents, and the effective assessment of business property damage and interruption claims.

The New York Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act became effective on April 18, 2026, establishing new deadlines for third-party complaints. Under this Act, a third-party plaintiff must file their complaint within 90 days of serving the initial answer pursuant to CPLR § 1007(b).1 Any third-party complaint against a plaintiff’s employer, however, must be filed within 90 days of the later of (1) discovering the employer’s identity; or (2) determining that the plaintiff sustained a “grave injury” as defined by Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. CPLR § 1007(e).2 The Act prohibits filing a third-party complaint after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice. CPLR § 1007(c).3 A third-party action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. CPLR § 1007(d).4 Any severed actions that are initiated as new actions cannot then be consolidated. CPLR § 1007(f).5 Regarding retroactivity: an amendment clarifies that the Act applies to all cases commenced on or after the April 18, 2026 effective date.6 Be advised that as of April 16, 2026, the New York State website has not yet integrated this amendment into the statutory text.7 Lexis captures this update in the editor’s notes,8 and Westlaw includes it within the proposed legislation section.9 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 1 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  2 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  3 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  4 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  5 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  6 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8809  7 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1007  8 2026 N.Y. ALS 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Laws 79 ; 2026 N.Y. Ch. 79 ; 2026 N.Y. SB 8809 9 https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search/v1/results/navigation/i0a93b86c0000019d9c1ba0e5c3a0e723?ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&Nav=MULTIPLECITATIONS&fragmentIdentifier=NFE11DA10E4E211F0AA39CB673CF36EC6&parentRank=0&startIndex=1&contextData=%28sc.Search%29&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=781efccd7c647a1b5673e671cb33d842&list=MULTIPLECITATIONS&sessionScopeId=a4a94ca7e43970d7bb6b9036b5ab4e414796eb2f36e0a800dc47d1459a582deb&ppcid=44f5a950322a4255ae42b3e5a5e57b22&originationContext=NonUniqueFindSelected&transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)

Sarah Fink (Of Counsel-Long Island, NY) authored “Mixed Signals on the Free Flow of information Online – One Step Forward, Two Steps Back,” appearing in the April 21, 2026, posting of Westlaw Today. The article examines three recent court decisions that send mixed signals on the future of internet liability and statutory safe harbor defenses, highlighting a Supreme Court ruling that reinforces protections for online service providers and encourages the free flow of information, alongside two state court rulings (California and New Mexico) that expand potential liability for social media platforms, holding that they can be held liable for harm caused by addiction to social media. Sarah opines, “Together, these three decisions highlight the tension between First Amendment speech rights, statutory safe harbors, public safety online, and recourse for harms, such as mental health deterioration and copyright infringement.” She further explains that the cases “also demonstrate that the traditional statutory safe harbors for internet actors may be circumvented by creative pleading and litigation tactics, leading to questions about their continued relevance.”

Michael S. Takacs (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Andrew Rossi (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a property owner/landlord. The plaintiff, a tenant at the client’s apartment complex, allegedly sustained a forehead laceration, concussion, post-concussion syndrome, and injuries to her neck after striking her forehead on a dumpster’s trunnion bar while taking out her trash. She claimed the trunnion bar, which a truck uses to lift the dumpster during emptying, was a dangerous condition because it “sticks out inconspicuously” and lacked warnings or contrasting paint to make it more visible. The codefendant waste management company supplied and serviced the dumpster under a customer service agreement with our client, retained ownership, and specifically prohibited the client from altering it. The plaintiff, who had lived at the property for more than a year, admitted to using the dumpster at least weekly to dispose of her trash. Michael and Andrew moved for summary judgment, asserting that the client neither owed nor breached a legal duty of care to protect the plaintiff where the alleged condition of the trunnion bar was open, obvious, and readily visible on equipment the client did not own or control. The court entered summary judgment on behalf of the client, dismissing all claims and crossclaims.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued an order on April 23, 2026, rescheduling state-licensed medical marijuana and Food & Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cannabis products to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The order is also expected to jumpstart the stalled Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) rescheduling process for adult use marijuana, which currently remains in Schedule I. The order, therefore, narrows but does not eliminate federal prohibitions. Historical Insurer Treatment of Marijuana For years, federal illegality and Schedule I status fueled blanket exclusions, limited capacity, and encouraged a reliance on the excess and surplus (E&S) market, where bespoke forms and higher premiums filled coverage gaps. Large commercial insurers consistently cited federal illegality and related banking/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) concerns as the principal reasons to stay out, with reputational risk present but fading over time. Federal AML rules under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) added compliance friction for “financial institutions,” a term that includes insurers, keeping many programs E&S-only. Reinsurance treaties often include Schedule I barriers, limiting underwriting capacity and appetite. The result has been a fragmented market with tight limits, uneven forms and reinsurance constraints, while admitted options remained scarce.  Emerging Insurance Opportunities Under Schedule III Rescheduling removes a top financial headwind for state‑licensed medical operators by removing Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, enabling ordinary business deductions and improving margins and balance sheets that are essential for better insurance terms and capacity. As profitability and transparency improve, carriers are likely to expand property and business interruption limits for medical cannabis insureds and lean back into reinsurance partnerships that were hard to place under Schedule I. Directors and Officers (D&O) towers should also deepen if valuations, listings, and deal flow revive, though board risk will get more complex. On the casualty side, product liability and recall remain core needs across the supply chain, and demand should rise as operators scale and SKUs proliferate. Underwriting and Risk Assessment The expectation should not be for underwriting to get “easy” just because the schedule number has changed. Transitional risk is real as a result of new products, larger facilities, evolving QA systems, and changing oversight, which all add execution risk that underwriters will price and condition.  Reclassification may also spark short‑term turbulence if unregulated products spike or enforcement lines blur, amplifying exposures around labeling, warnings, and adverse event tracking. Carriers must continue to scrutinize controls around testing, traceability, facility security protections, and product compliance.  Regulatory and Compliance Implications for Insurers Banking access should improve as perceived AML risk recedes, and Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement (FinCEN) is widely expected to refresh guidance, which would materially reduce compliance concerns for insurers. That said, federal law still treats marijuana as a controlled substance, and FDA/DEA frameworks do not harmonize with adult‑use state markets. The federal prescription drug system mandates FDA‑approved products, doctor prescriptions, pharmacy dispensing and uniform labeling. FDA has not approved “marijuana” itself for any condition, even though it has approved a CBD‑derived drug (Epidiolex) and several THC‑related drugs (Marinol, Syndros, Cesamet).  Schedule III drugs, by definition, require valid prescriptions. The new order recognizes state‑licensed medical marijuana within Schedule III, but it does not create FDA standards for those state‑program products. The history of federal attention over CBD should be a cautionary tale for what may come next. Years after hemp was removed from the CSA, the FDA tried to police the quickly expanding consumer hemp product market but eventually gave up and punted the question to Congress in 2023. The regulatory status of CBD in consumer products remains unclear to this day. The move to Schedule III makes a similar pattern likely for medical marijuana products, while leaving intact the prohibition on interstate commerce for unapproved drugs. With no FDA playbook governing state medical cannabis, insurers still face gray zones on product safety, compliance warranties, and how to price recall and product‑liability risk across a patchwork of state standards. To date, the DOJ has largely sidestepped how federal rules will interact with state markets, and even now FDA officials have signaled limited appetite and capacity to police the state industry. This uncertain compliance environment keeps the market in “proceed with caution” mode.  Broader Insurance Market Outlook Even with the new Schedule III order and an expected acceleration of rulemaking for adult use cannabis products, most industry experts still forecast incremental, measured expansion rather than a flood of cheap capacity. Specialty E&S markets will maintain their early lead, scaling capacity where controls are strong and data quality is high. Established carriers may test targeted segments, which may include well capitalized and vertically integrated operators with robust governance. Reinsurers, meanwhile, should selectively increase their presence as banking and financial reporting normalize. Admitted options may emerge first for lower hazard risks, but E&S will dominate complex risks until federal state alignment is clearer and product safety litigation trends stabilize.  Where We Are Going Rescheduling is the green light many insurers have been waiting for, but the light is still flashing. Most importantly, the timing on rescheduling and rulemaking for adult use cannabis products remains uncertain. Taxes and banking are set to improve immediately for medical marijuana operators. In this environment, new insurance entrants will follow the underwriting experts who already know the terrain. The winners will be carriers and insureds who treat this as a disciplined pivot‒ lock in compliance, invest in quality systems, and build programs that can scale as federal guidance catches up. The next 12 to 24 months should see steady capacity gains and a gradual transition from “can we insure it?” to “how well is it run?” Meanwhile, E&S is still calling the plays while the admitted market warms up on the sidelines. 

Andrew Albright (Partner-Chicago) and Keti Mebuke (Associate-Chicago) will present the Wilson Elser Forum webinar “ANSI Standards in Product Liability Litigation: Admissibility, Strategic Use, and Practical Risk Management” on April 30, 2026. The webinar examines how courts treat voluntary industry safety standards in product liability cases, including their admissibility at trial and how these standards are used by experts to evaluate product design and safety. Using a revolving-door injury case by way of example, the webinar will discuss how ANSI standards (including ANSI/BHMA A156.27, governing power-operated revolving doors) are applied in product liability litigation. The session will also review relevant case law, including Illinois authority, addressing the admissibility and evidentiary role of industry standards. The webinar is designed for attorneys, claims professionals, and risk managers who handle product liability matters and seek a practical understanding of how ANSI standards influence trial, expert testimony, litigation strategy, and risk management.

Joshua Bachrach (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) will present “Recent Developments on Equitable Relief Under ERISA” at the 2026 DRI Life, Health, Disability & ERISA Seminar, held April 29 – May 1, 2026, in Atlanta, Georgia. Josh’s session provides a brief review of relevant Supreme Court decisions and covers various topics, such as whether surcharge is a permissible remedy under ERISA, use of Section 502(a)(3) to recover attorney’s fees, and the applicability of the exhaustion requirement. Josh, who has handled several hundred ERISA cases nationwide, also addresses breach of fiduciary duty claims and equitable relief remedies at this preeminent seminar for in-house and outside counsel regularly practicing in the life, health, disability, and ERISA areas.

Super Lawyers® has named three Wilson Elser attorneys to the 2026 Virginia Rising Stars™ list: Rising Stars Natalie B. Jacobs (Associate) – Professional Liability: Defense Haley B. Mathis (Of Counsel) – Business Litigation Hariton J. Wilson (Associate) – Civil Litigation: Defense Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The Rising Stars lists, comprising the best attorneys 40 years old and younger or who have practiced law for 10 years or less, are published in Super Lawyers magazines and leading city and regional magazines nationwide. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are named to these lists.

New York – April 20, 2026 – National law firm Wilson Elser today announced the addition of Elizabeth Olson as a partner in its Denver office, strengthening the firm's Design Professionals and Construction practices. Olson joins Wilson Elser from a regional litigation firm focused on tort and commercial litigation, bringing more than a decade of experience successfully defending complex construction, design professional, and commercial matters across various jurisdictions. “For 15 years, Wilson Elser’s Denver office has offered full-service legal support for clients in the Rocky Mountain region,” said Wilson Elser Chair Daniel J. McMahon. "Elizabeth's arrival deepens our bench in critical practice areas and reflects our continued investment in attracting top-tier talent to serve our clients." “Elizabeth’s hiring enhances our existing practices in Denver,” said Jason Melichar, regional managing partner of Wilson Elser’s Denver office. “She will work closely with Ryan Williams, our Denver-based cochair of the firm’s Design Professionals Practice, in defending architects and engineers in construction defect matters.” Olson noted that her decision to join the firm was informed by firsthand experience litigating cases opposite Wilson Elser's Denver attorneys. “The firm has an outstanding reputation in the civil litigation defense community, and I am confident that its robust platform and resources will serve my clients exceptionally well," she said. Olson's practice encompasses a broad range of civil defense matters, including construction and design professional liability, premises liability, general casualty, contract disputes, commercial litigation, product liability, and transportation. She has represented clients in state and federal courts in Colorado and Arizona. Olson earned her J.D. from Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law and her B.A. in Economics and Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations from Rice University.

Craig Brinker (Partner–Dallas, TX) and Meina Heydari (Associate–Washington, D.C.) obtained dismissal of a legal malpractice and gross negligence case in the 401st District Court of Collin County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s clients, a law firm and two attorneys. Our clients had represented the plaintiff in an earlier child custody case. The pro se plaintiff alleged that in the underlying matter, the attorneys failed to adequately represent her during a contested temporary orders hearing in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) action involving custody and support issues concerning her minor son, and sought actual and exemplary damages. Craig and Meina filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(h)(3), arguing that because the plaintiff’s claims turned on her attorneys’ litigation strategy in a complex family-law proceeding, expert testimony was required to establish the breach and causation elements of her claims. They further argued that the plaintiff’s failure to designate any experts, despite receiving a thirty-day extension of the designation deadline, warranted dismissal. Craig and Meina also successfully opposed the plaintiff’s invocation of the “common knowledge” exception and request for additional discovery, establishing that the absence of expert testimony was a dispositive deficiency that further discovery could not cure. The court granted Wilson Elser’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against all three defendants with prejudice.